On the subject in the title: Validating a method you did not develop Working notes rather than a conclusion.
What changes if the standard account of validating a method is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.
Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.
Transfer between laboratories: a method can be transferred from one lab to another, but the receiving lab needs to demonstrate that they can achieve the same performance. This requires comparative testing and sometimes small method refinements.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
Picking up post #2: that is the part I would want checked first.
Accuracy: the method measures what you intend to measure. For purity methods, this is tested by spike-and-recover experiments: add a known amount of impurity to a sample and measure whether you recover the added amount.
On post #4 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Robustness testing deliberately varies the parameters most likely to drift — organic percentage, pH, temperature, flow — and shows the result does not. It is the part of validation that predicts whether a method will transfer.
Forced degradation studies: deliberately stress the material with acid, base, oxidant, heat, light to generate degradation products and demonstrate that the method can separate them from the parent peak. Acceptance is that the method is stability-indicating.
Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.
A method transferred between laboratories needs a demonstration that it performs equivalently, not just a document describing it. Transfer is where a great many between-laboratory disagreements originate.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
This follows post #6 rather than contradicting it.
Documented validation is what separates a number from an opinion expressed numerically. That is the whole reason to ask for the procedure identifier rather than the method name.
Why two laboratories may disagree: after validating the same method, they may still report different purity on the same sample due to integration differences, column age differences, subtle differences in mobile phase pH or temperature. This is normal and not a sign that one is wrong.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
Post #8 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
A stability-indicating method is one demonstrated to resolve the analyte from its degradation products, usually through forced degradation. Calling a method stability-indicating without that work is a claim rather than a property.
If anyone has run this properly I would rather read that than my own guess.
Specificity: the method can distinguish the intended compound from related impurities and degradation products. Tested by comparing results on pure compounds, mixtures of compounds, and degraded samples.
Not a conclusion. A place to stand while looking for one.
An independent laboratory's method being different from the supplier's is not a discrepancy. It becomes one only when the results differ by more than both methods' demonstrated precision.
Where I part company with post #11, and it is a narrow parting.
Stability-indicating method: one that can separate a compound from its degradation products. Critical for assay methods that claim to measure actual degradation (as opposed to purity, which is orthogonal).
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Relative retention time as a better inter-laboratory comparator
On the subject in the title: Relative retention time as a better inter-laboratory comparator Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of relative retention time is wrong? I…
|
+7 | 11 | 28k | 14mo |
|
What a stability-indicating method is and how you demonstrate one — one year on
What a stability-indicating method is and how you demonstrate one — one year on I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. Asking about stability-indicating…
|
+100 | 112 | 15k | 19mo |
|
Specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, range, robustness — with real criteria
Specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, range, robustness — with real criteria Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Trying to establish the boundary…
|
+44 | 48 | 12k | 1d |
|
Forced degradation studies: designing one that is informative
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Forced degradation studies: designing one that is informative Everything below is what sits behind that. Collecting what is known about forced degradation studies…
|
+100 | 106 | 35k | 2d |
|
Revisiting: Spike-and-recover accuracy for a peptide assay
Revisiting: Spike-and-recover accuracy for a peptide assay — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. I was wrong about Spike-and-recover accuracy in a thread last spring and I…
|
2 | 6.8k | 21h |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What a reversed-phase purity number actually is — the long version
What a reversed-phase purity number actually is — the long version I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. I would like to understand what this number means…
|
2 | 15k | 8mo | |
|
Coming back to: What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: What consumer-accessible tests can and cannot determine Something about consumer-accessible tests does not reconcile and I would like a second pair…
|
+4 | 8 | 25k | 22mo |
|
System suitability injections: if they failed, the run did not happen — the long version
System suitability injections: if they failed, the run did not happen — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A narrow question about System suitability…
|
+2 | 6 | 6.2k | 1d |
|
Sample handling between despatch and injection
Sample handling between despatch and injection Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on sample handling between…
|
+63 | 68 | 2.4k | 3mo |
|
What a simple presence test is genuinely useful for
What a simple presence test is genuinely useful for — that is the question, and I have not found it answered plainly anywhere I have looked. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on simple presence…
|
2 | 58 | 1d |